Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.

I did read Higgins, carefully, Tilt. It is possible that I misunderstood something, but check out the parts in bold. He wasn't only praising the idea of ethics and mutual respect (which i support as well) he praised Salon Kitty, as a business...

I agree that we should not pass judgment on gays, lesbians or other "sexual minorities" but that is quite different from praising intensely pleasurable sexual activities between strangers, and calling them "close to the dhamma"...

The appropriate Buddhist attitude to other sexual minorities is just the same. I tested this by visiting the website of Salon Kitty, a very fastidious local establishment which describes itself as 'one of the world's leading BDSM houses.' BDSM stands for bondage, discipline and sado-masochism. On Salon Kitty's main menu is a statement of ethics, which the duty of care and overall responsibility ' the dominant' owes 'the submissive,' not least around the obviously crucial issue of consent. In part the statement of ethics says: Implied in consent is the responsibility of the dominant partner in any BDSM scene to monitor the wellbeing of the submissive to ensure that the submissive is stable and that the consent is still operative.

It is also the responsibility of the dominant to ensure that the submissive is not consenting to an act that is not in his or her best longterm interests. Neither party should indulge in heavy drinking or drug taking as this can impair judgement… A description follows of the mechanism for instantly withdrawing consent - the uttering of a pre-agreed 'safe word' - which immediately brings the procedure in question to an end.

Then the statement of ethics resumes: In order to enjoy the possibilities that the world of BDSM offers, one must first discover respect and trust both of oneself and of others. Elements of all five precepts are there, including the last. On the basis of this statement we can conclude that Salon Kitty comes closer to Dhamma than fundamentalist, social engineering killjoys of various religious persuasions!

How is an employee in a sexual trade going to have the wisdom to know that someone is not consenting to an act that is not in his or her best interest? This description by Higgins sounds quite self-deceptive, to me. On the basis of a website's statements we can conclude that this particular sex shop, that we really know nothing about beyond its advertising, comes closer to the dhamma?

Deceptive logic of this sort is very human. As Jechbi noted about taking things out of context, its something we all do. This is how the samsaric mind works. We hide the truth from ourselves by constructing false beliefs and then forming attachments to those beliefs. I do it, you do it, most of us do it, in my opinion. That's why we have to be so so so very mindful, to unknot these deceptions, and observe how our minds work with these things...

That's my view, anyway.

Please check out this short Wikipedia article on Self Deception, it provides a pretty good summary.

It has been theorized that humans are susceptible to self-deception because most people have emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have suggested that deception plays a significant part in human behaviour, and in animal behavior, more generally speaking. It has been theorized that an instinct for self-deception can give a person a selective advantage, based on the rationale that if a person can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth."

This notion is based on the following logic. In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe their distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth. It may also be argued that the ability to deceive, or self-deceive, is not the selected trait but a by-product of a more primary trait called abstract thinking. Abstract thinking allows many evolutionary advantages such as more flexible, adaptive behaviors and innovation. Since a lie is an abstraction, the mental process of creating a lie can only occur in animals with enough brain complexity to permit abstract thinking...

I would expect that there are corresponding descriptions of this made by the Buddha. I'm reading an excellent book right now by Dzigar Kongtrul, called "It's Up to You: The Practice of Self-Reflection on the Buddhist Path" which talks about this extensively...

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

christopher::: wrote:I did read Higgins, carefully, Tilt. It is possible that I misunderstood something, but check out the parts in bold. He wasn't only praising the idea of ethics and mutual respect (which i support as well) he praised Salon Kitty, as a business...

As usual, the actual point Higgins was making is not addressed.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:Let us see here. For you lay people the Buddha has not proscribed sexual relations, but keep in mind this is really unwholesome, unskillful - and by not much extension - a pāpa activity, but you are not violating the precepts if you do the in-and-outs in a consenting, of legal age, free individuals relationship. No basis whatsoever for conflict here.

There is no conflict as long as one realizes the five precepts are a starting point, and not the whole, of the Path.

The precepts are ways of cultivating awareness, and to some degree reflect what awakened behavior might look like(, though, of course, there things an awakened individual would not do that are allowed in the precepts).

Conversation requires context

Yes, and I was the only one who asked the OP for context. The rest of you dived right in to what you thought he was asking and what you thought he needed to hear. Absent any context, as the OP never gave, I think the appropriate response to a question about Buddhism on a Buddhist forum is to give a plain answer in line with the Buddhist teachings.

It was a drive-by question, which was obvious very early on, given that there was no follow up, but the OP is still around. Leave him a PM.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:while it certainly should acknowledged that sexual activity is something that involves attachment, for the lay person one need not feel guilt about it; it does not stop one from keeping the precepts, and sexually active individuals can meditate. In time, however, with insight one’s relationship to sex will very likely change.

I think this is a wonderful answer.

Yeah, it is the answer in line with the Dhamma.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Higgins’ “dancing lightly” is in a broader context of the precepts and awareness.

I see your point. Still, I worry it is a subtle point easily overlooked.

I think we have seen that repeatedly in this thread. The obverse is Ajahn Brahm’s presentation.

tilt wrote:

Peter wrote:One could certainly cultivate aversion toward snakes. One could also simply be heedful without indulging in aversion.

Are you suggesting that one can have heedful sex? Or what?

No, I am suggesting that one who avoids sex may do so out of aversion or they may do so out of heedfulness. Likewise, one who discusses the dangers of sex may do so out of aversion or out of heedfulness. In other words, not everyone who discusses the Buddha's teachings on the dangers and drawbacks of indulging in sensual pleasures is an uptight Puritan.

But the uptight Puritans are out there.

And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.

As for what you personally do or don’t do, I don’t give a rat’s ass. It is simply none of my business.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

I don't think it matters, tilt. You get all up in arms that someone is going to read what the Buddha taught regarding sensual pleasures and think we're all uptight Puritans, or that they should feel shame and guilt that they don't live up to those standards... yet you see nothing wrong with an article which says "it's ok to dance lightly with sensual pleasures" and which speaks of a BDSM business as close to the Dhamma. Misunderstanding happens in both directions. Your fears of misunderstanding are not somehow more valid than christopher's or mine.

I think articles, and there are many, which say "there's nothing wrong with X as long as you are a lay person" are misleading people into a false Dhamma. And yes I understand that articles which present straight-up Dhamma can, through misunderstanding, scare people away from the Dhamma. It's a tricky thing trying to teach people.

sundara wrote:What's wrong to masturbate once in a while, what has buddhism got to say about that?

To be honest, I don't know what Buddhism has to say about it per se, but I don't think there's anything wrong with sex or masturbation myself. While probably not considered "Dhamma" by most, I rather like what Gendun Choepel wrote in his introduction to his translation of the Kama Sutra:

As for me - I have little shame I love women. Every man has a woman. Every woman has a man. Both in their mind desire sexual union. What chance is the for clean behaviour? If natural passions are openly banned, unnatural passions will grow in secrecy. No law of religion - no law of morality can suppress the natural passion of mankind.

You get all up in arms that someone is going to read what the Buddha taught regarding sensual pleasures and think we're all uptight Puritans,

Your practice has gotten to a level of mind reading now? Keep at it; you are not quite there yet.

or that they should feel shame and guilt that they don't live up to those standards...

People do feel shame and guilt for not living up to what they see as the ideal. It gets expressed repeatedly on forums such as this.

yet you see nothing wrong with an article which says "it's ok to dance lightly with sensual pleasures" and which speaks of a BDSM business as close to the Dhamma. Misunderstanding happens in both directions.

Not the business. The point Higgins is suggesting that rules the Salon Kitty has set up are more humane and compassionate than the rigid fundamentalist sort of “You damn well better not do this very thing or that very thing” rules that we see in what he characterizes as the “ethnic religion” as opposed to the “universal religion.” of Buddhism.

Your fears of misunderstanding are not somehow more valid than christopher's or mine.

I think you are now arguing with yourself here, or something, but what is not clear.

I think articles, and there are many, which say "there's nothing wrong with X as long as you are a lay person" are misleading people into a false Dhamma. And yes I understand that articles which present straight-up Dhamma can, through misunderstanding, scare people away from the Dhamma. It's a tricky thing trying to teach people.

Kinda my point. I don’t think Higgins’ presentation is perfect. Obviously, his referencing the Salon Kitty’s rules, while graphically making a point, was too distracting to his point for some, but at least he made an attempt at putting things into a context that is accessible.

Ajahn Brahm: Buddhism means many things to many people. To some, it offers wise and compassionate advice on how to lessen the suffering of modern lay life. To others, it is the path to Enlightenment which ends all suffering. Mr Higgins' article in the November issue of Bodhi Leaf refers to the former kind of Buddhism only. The Buddhism which leads to Enlightenment is somewhat different, as we will now show. This is kind of sad, actually. People need to start from where they are.

I rather doubt Higgins would deny the truth of ”. . . sexual desire is KILESA (defilement of the mind), it is a hindrance to success in meditation and an obstruction to Enlightenment. He taught that sexual activity should be abandoned if one wants to end suffering. He would never speak in praise of sex. He would only speak in praise of letting go.” It could be a bit more skillfully presented.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

Peter wrote:And I will remind you that one cannot infer what I personally do or don't do from the above statements.

As for what you personally do or don’t do, I don’t give a rat’s ass. It is simply none of my business.

Oh please!

Okay.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:So, you must eat rather bland boring food, never do anything that that brings any sort of enjoyment to yourself.

You have littered comments like this throughout the thread.

That is an eyeroller. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you do. It was kind of sort of in a way meant to be a rhetorical question.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:Ajahn Brahm: "Buddhism means many things to many people. To some, it offers wise and compassionate advice on how to lessen the suffering of modern lay life. To others, it is the path to Enlightenment which ends all suffering. Mr Higgins' article in the November issue of Bodhi Leaf refers to the former kind of Buddhism only. The Buddhism which leads to Enlightenment is somewhat different, as we will now show." This is kind of sad, actually. People need to start from where they are.

Funny, but this strikes me as precisely saying "people need to start where they are." Some do it this way, others do it that way. And yet...

tiltbillings wrote:People do feel shame and guilt for not living up to what they see as the ideal. It gets expressed repeatedly on forums such as this.

I see that as well. Even tho Ajahn Brahm mentions different kind of Buddhists and even tho he doesn't say or even hint that the one type should feel shame or guilt at not being the other type, still people do tend to react negatively to any suggestion that they are not practicing "the best" Buddhism or "the highest" Buddhism. Yesn Higgins' approach avoids this trap but then falls into the trap of underrepresenting the Buddha's teachings.

tiltbillings wrote:I don’t think Higgins’ presentation is perfect.

And I think it's clear you don't think the Venerable's presentation is perfect either. I think we could probably sum up by saying Higgins' approach falls prey to people's prediliction to find excuses for bad behavior and Ajahn Brahm's approach falls prey to people's ego chaffing at not being the best or highest.

tiltbillings wrote:but at least he made an attempt at putting things into a context that is accessible.

On the one hand I have heard it said, "Make it accessible and friendly even if incomplete or wrong. If one hangs around long enough they'll come across the full or correct teachings eventually. And by then maybe they'll be more ready for it."

On the other hand I have heard it said, "Give it to 'em straight. It might scare them off but at least they have heard the true teachings. Then at a later time when they are more ready for it they will come back."

I don't know which is right. Perhaps they are both right at times, depending on the listener. All I know is I have yet to find a way of presenting which satisfies all parties. And this issue comes up whenever the discussion turns to sensual pleasure, whether it be sex or cake or music or art. I remember a thread on ES about pie...

tiltbillings wrote: Ajahn Brahm: "Buddhism means many things to many people. To some, it offers wise and compassionate advice on how to lessen the suffering of modern lay life. To others, it is the path to Enlightenment which ends all suffering. Mr Higgins' article in the November issue of Bodhi Leaf refers to the former kind of Buddhism only. The Buddhism which leads to Enlightenment is somewhat different, as we will now show." This is kind of sad, actually. People need to start from where they are.

Funny, but this strikes me as precisely saying "people need to start where they are." Some do it this way, others do it that way.

The problem is suggesting that is an actual distinction. If one actually does the practice, the one leads to the other. Ven Nanada’s story applies here.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote: I don’t think Higgins’ presentation is perfect.

And I think it's clear you don't think the Venerable's presentation is perfect either. I think we could probably sum up by saying Higgins' approach falls prey to people's prediliction to find excuses for bad behavior and Ajahn Brahm's approach falls prey to people's ego chaffing at not being the best or highest.

No, it is not chafing egos. If the Dhamma is presented as baldly across the board to laity (from beginners to advanced students) as the article by AB presents it, it is brain surgery with ten thumbs, and AB’s article simply went hamhandedly in the other direction from Higgins. It would be possible to blend the two, giving us something better than each.

Peter wrote:

tiltbillings wrote: but at least he made an attempt at putting things into a context that is accessible.

On the one hand I have heard it said, "Make it accessible and friendly even if incomplete or wrong. If one hangs around long enough they'll come across the full or correct teachings eventually. And by then maybe they'll be more ready for it."

On the other hand I have heard it said, "Give it to 'em straight. It might scare them off but at least they have heard the true teachings. Then at a later time when they are more ready for it they will come back."

I don't know which is right. Perhaps they are both right at times, depending on the listener. All I know is I have yet to find a way of presenting which satisfies all parties. And this issue comes up whenever the discussion turns to sensual pleasure, whether it be sex or cake or music or art. I remember a thread on ES about pie...

I don’t agree with either tack, as stated above. There are teachers who do better than that.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is suggesting that is an actual distinction. If one actually does the practice, the one leads to the other.

Not sure if this is so. For example, merely following the five precepts, which is commonly the extent of lay practice, does not lead to insight.

tiltbillings wrote:Ven Nanada’s story applies here.

I do not get the impression that he attained higher knowledges while striving for nymphs. What we are told is the Buddha offers him nymphs and he merely agrees not to disrobe. Then the other monks poke fun at him. Then he gives up on the nymphs and settles down to practice in earnest.

tiltbillings wrote:I don’t agree with either tack, as stated above. There are teachers who do better than that.

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is suggesting that is an actual distinction. If one actually does the practice, the one leads to the other.

Not sure if this is so. For example, merely following the five precepts, which is commonly the extent of lay practice, does not lead to insight.

The context of this would be meditative practice as part of the lay practice, especially since Higgins is a meditation teacher.

I do not get the impression that he attained higher knowledges while striving for nymphs. What we are told is the Buddha offers him nymphs and he merely agrees not to disrobe. Then the other monks poke fun at him. Then he gives up on the nymphs and settles down to practice in earnest.

I don't think it reads that way at all:

"Rejoice, Nanda, rejoice, Nanda! I guarantee that you will obtain five hundred pink-footed nymphs."

"If, revered sir, the Lord guarantees that I will obtain five hundred pink-footed nymphs, I shall be content in living the holy life under the Lord."

Then the Lord took the Venerable Nanda by the arm... even so did they vanish from among the devas of the Tavatimsa heaven and appear in the Jeta Wood.

The bhikkhus heard: "It is said that the Venerable Nanda, the Lord's (half-) brother, the son of his maternal aunt, is living the holy life for the sake of nymphs. It is said that the Lord has guaranteed that he will obtain five hundred pink-footed nymphs."

Then the bhikkhu-friends of the Venerable Nanda went about calling him "hireling" and "menial," saying: "The Venerable Nanda is a hireling! The Venerable Nanda is a menial! He is living the holy life for the sake of nymphs! It is said that the Lord has guaranteed that he will obtain five hundred pink-footed nymphs!"

Then the Venerable Nanda was humiliated, ashamed, and dismayed by his friends calling him "hireling" and "menial." Living alone, secluded, diligent, ardent, and resolute, he soon realized even here and now through his own direct knowledge that unequalled goal of the holy life for the sake of which sons of good family rightly go forth from home to the homeless state, and entering into it he abode in it. And he knew: "Finished is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what had to be done, there is no more of this state." And the Venerable Nanda became one of the arahats.

Then, when the night was far advanced, a certain devata of surpassing beauty, illuminating the whole Jeta Wood, approached the Lord, prostrated himself and stood to one side. Standing there that devata said to the Lord: "The Venerable Nanda, revered sir, the Lord's (half-) brother, the son of his maternal aunt, by the ending of the taints has realized here and now through his own direct knowledge the taintless mind-deliverance and wisdom-deliverance, and entering into it, he abides in it."

The knowledge also arose in the Lord: "Nanda, by the ending of the taints, has realized here and now the taintless mind-deliverance and wisdom-deliverance, and entering into it, he abides in it."

When that night had ended the Venerable Nanda approached the Lord, prostrated himself, sat down to one side, and said to the Lord: "Revered sir, as to the Lord's guarantee that I will obtain five hundred pink-footed nymphs, I release the Lord from that promise."

"But, Nanda, comprehending your mind with my mind, I knew: 'Nanda has realized here and now the taintless mind-deliverance and wisdom-deliverance.' Also, a devata told me: 'The Venerable Nanda, revered sir, has realized here and now the taintless mind-deliverance and wisdom-deliverance.' When, Nanda, your mind was released from the taints without grasping, I was then released from that promise."

I have not read the entire thread so please excuse me if I'm repeating this idea:It is widely held that those having attained stream entry can still enjoy the pleasures of sex......if this is so then should we take this to mean that sexual pleasure is not as big of a hindrance as some might want us to believe (except perhaps to a few people who are "pleasure addicts")?....or should we who have not attained stream entry go ferret them (stream entrants) out with the purpose of warning them about the downside of masturbation and how it might inhibit their progress?

chownah wrote:those having attained stream entry can still enjoy the pleasures of sex

"Can" is a tricky word to use here. There is no sense of allowing one thing or prohibiting another thing in lay Buddhism. A sotapanna (or sakadagami) has not eradicated the fetter of sensual desire and so it is possible such a person may still experience the arising of desire for sex. On the other hand, an anagami (and arahant) has eradicated the fetter of sensual desire and thus such a person would never experience the arising of desire for sex.

I think saying "the fetter of X has not yet been eradicated thus it is fine to indulge in X" misses something quite crucial about the Path. It seems like basically saying "My goal is to break this fetter but in the meantime I'm going to strengthen it." That makes no sense to me.

chownah wrote:those having attained stream entry can still enjoy the pleasures of sex

"Can" is a tricky word to use here. There is no sense of allowing one thing or prohibiting another thing in lay Buddhism. A sotapanna (or sakadagami) has not eradicated the fetter of sensual desire and so it is possible such a person may still experience the arising of desire for sex. On the other hand, an anagami (and arahant) has eradicated the fetter of sensual desire and thus such a person would never experience the arising of desire for sex.

I think saying "the fetter of X has not yet been eradicated thus it is fine to indulge in X" misses something quite crucial about the Path. It seems like basically saying "My goal is to break this fetter but in the meantime I'm going to strengthen it." That makes no sense to me.

Peter,when I used the "can" i didn't really like it but lacked the knowledge to give a better explanation which you have provided...thank you for that.

I didn't say "the fetter of X has not yet been eradicated thus it is fine to indulge in X" and I'm wondering why you would interject this view into a comment on my post just so that you could disagree with it....this might make people mistakenly think that I have made this statement...which I have not. What I did say was that PERHAPS "sexual pleasure is not as big of a hindrance as some might want us to believe" and to explain further it is at least theoretically possible that one can go all the way to stream enterer while indulging in sex (presumably the stream enterer ACTS on the sexual desire but that is another point which could be discussed) so we can take from this that depending on ones attachments the sexual one might not be as important as some might believe...greed might be a better one for some to focus on...or the consumption of intoxicants...or...or...well let's face it there are lots of things we can work on and my personal view is that one should try to discern and analyze all that arises.....including sexual things of all kinds....this also includes the aversion to sex arising from the view that it might block ones path to enlightenment.

You also posted, "My goal is to break this fetter but in the meantime I'm going to strengthen it." and again I hope that people don't take this to mean that I have made this statement....because again I have not.....but....since you have again added some point of view from I don't know where just so that you can disagree with it...let me ask whether masturbating strengthens the fetter of sensual desire? Seems like many induldge in sensual desire pretty much all day long pretty much every day if they are given the opportunity and that some of these people will eventually eradicate the fetter of sensual desire inspite of the fact that they are indulgin in it every day....seems like the key to this is to discern and analyze what arises....which is an entirely different thing then trying to just stop the indulgence without gaining the insight as to how it arises...you can't gain the insight into how attachments arise without them arising in my view and trying to eliminate them without the insight seems alot like ascetism wich I thnk is one of the things the "middle path" is supposed to help us avoid.

chownah wrote:I didn't say "the fetter of X has not yet been eradicated thus it is fine to indulge in X" and I'm wondering why you would interject this view into a comment on my post just so that you could disagree with it....this might make people mistakenly think that I have made this statement...which I have not.

It is one possible way to understand your use of the word "can". "Can I have a cookie?" "Yes you can." This means it is fine for you to indulge in having a cookie. Maybe it is not what you meant, but since it that was not clear I made sure people understood why this idea was wrong.

Seems like many induldge in sensual desire pretty much all day long pretty much every day if they are given the opportunity and that some of these people will eventually eradicate the fetter of sensual desire inspite of the fact that they are indulgin in it every day.

Really? Who are these people you refer to? Let us have a specific example.Are you sure you are not making an unfounded assumption here?

seems like the key to this is to discern and analyze what arises....which is an entirely different thing then trying to just stop the indulgence without gaining the insight as to how it arises.

This is a false dichotomy. Discerning a desire when it arises is one thing, indulging that desire is something else. One can discern desires as they arise without then going on to indulge those desires.

you can't gain the insight into how attachments arise without them arising in my view and trying to eliminate them without the insight seems alot like ascetism wich I thnk is one of the things the "middle path" is supposed to help us avoid.

Then you understand nothing about the Path. Consider: a] monks are instructed by the Buddha to give up all manner of sensual indulgences, b] the Buddha teaches the middle path. How do you suppose one reconciles those two facts? According to what you have said here, they are irreconcilable. Think about it.

Peter wrote:Then you understand nothing about the Path. Consider: a] monks are instructed by the Buddha to give up all manner of sensual indulgences, b] the Buddha teaches the middle path. How do you suppose one reconciles those two facts? According to what you have said here, they are irreconcilable. Think about it.

So, what ever the Buddha told the monastics, is exactly what the laity should do?

So, no individual who was/is a streamwinner has had sex before, while following the Path, and after attaining this level of awakening?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

chownah said we must indulge our desires in order to be able to gain insight into them. To not indulge our desires he called asceticism falling outside the middle way. If this were true, then the Buddha gave his monastic order instructions which fall outside the middle way. Since it is absurd that the Buddha would have done this, we can conclude chownah's statements are likewise absurd.